a historical precedent. there are many who think we need to pay attention to the debt ceiling and it has been raised 78 times and there has never really been this discussion whether or not they think it is constitutional. they have assumed since we have had it for so long that it must be constitutional. it has been there the whole time, but it has never gotten to the point where it really mattered. host: here is a headline of yesterday. it meant there was a technical default on some of the investors. what happened then? guest: there were lawsuits. there is no doubt that there will be lawsuits there is a delay in payment by bondholders. there's very little doubt they will receive everything back but interest.

host: the law is on their side. guest: yes. unless they've claim sovereign immunity, these lawsuits would be brought and once the money exist to pay them back, they will get their money back. with interest. that is what happened in 1979. how does that affect future interest rates? one art -- one academic paper argues there will be a permanent adverse affect from then on simply because the sense of the treasury bond as being a perfectly safe investment would be eradicated. that is the concern here. people think of it as pretty darn safe. maybe even that just a tiny bit of risk may mean higher interest rates. realistically, bondholders will be paid back eventually, even if we had a two or three month standoff. host: arizona, independent line.

caller: my question is similar to previous callers, that the constitution set it up so that congress has the authority to make debt going forward for bonding. the debt that we are discussing where we possibly be in default is that that has already occurred. could a major argument by obama, if he needed to come out to say that this country will never default on its debt, so that is why he could use the 14th amendment to his advantage to leverage so that this country never does the fault. it should never come to that point in this country. i was wondering what he would have to say about that.

guest: at the very least, politically, there is some attraction that whatever happens we will never default. one thing that is important to see about this debate is that the president could take at least three different positions. one, he could say is that we will ignore section four of the 14th amendment. another would be the same will act like we never had this crisis in the first place and business as usual. that is an intermediate position in which she says we think the debt ceiling is binding except for the extent that it would lead to a default on past debt and except for the need to issue existing debt to pay off past debts. that is, perhaps, an attractive position, both legally and politically, that would still leave the crisis. if we stop making social security requirements, there would be a big crisis.

at least, in that case, it would not actually lead to a default. it could adversely affect our future ability to borrow. host: republican line from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is how much are we paying for people who did not really pay in to social security and did not work like these kids who are hooked on drugs, alcohol, stuff like that and are collecting s.f.i. how much money? host: i think that is out of the area of the expertise of our guest. to ocean city, new jersey. you are on the air. caller: hello. good morning, america. i kind of do not agree with the

republican agenda. i just wanted to make that statement. i really feel like they want to take away benefits to people on social security, yet they give subsidies to billionaire oil companies. to me, that does not make any sense. social security is, sort of, an asset. as far as the constitution, one crazy question. we are talking about impeachment of the president. is there any way that the general public can remove members of congress from their seats in sort of a public impeachment of people who do not do their jobs and lollygag? guest: you cannot recall your congressman except for every two years in the house and every four years for the senate. a lot of callers are bringing a

general position on their views of social security. for example, medicare, defense, and so on. that is one of the things that makes this so hard. this is a game of chicken. everybody knows that a kind of has to get done and we come to the table. here is a game of chicken where everything is on the table. every issue, every debate, every grievance that both parties have have to get worked out. we have to be able to kick the can a little bit which brings everything back in from medicare, social security, defense spending, corporate tax cuts, and so on. that is one reason this is so hard and why, in the end, it will be resolved very shortly before the deadline. it would be smart of the parties not to do it earlier if there is enough time for everyone to think and argue, parties will back off. it has to be done at 10:00 p.m., have a vote yes or no, no time for public debate. host: the more time there is,

the more they hate it. guest: we have one whole week before the congressional vote and everyone has time to think about it. during that week, both sides are going to try to get more out of it. they are right to say, "this is what i did not get," and the deal will fall apart. of the deal needs to get on at the deadline. congress will have to stay a little late, and they will vote right there and quickly so that we do not have enough time for whatever coalition emerges. host: off of twitter -- guest: those appointed by a republican 10 to interpret specific provisions of the 14th amendment. host: what do they say?

guest: there is the protection clause, due process, protection of the community, and treatises have been written about all of them. there are too many issues to talk about. one question is to what extent to those interpretive and philosophies spill over into section four? some say we should read it literally, some say we shall look at the text of the constitution. scalia would probably say that. that is a little hard. host: maryland, robert on the independent line. caller: you can cut me off, but give me a minute to make a statement or two. and seven times during the last political administration the republicans passed this debt ceiling. seven times. nothing was said about it.

they took the money and they rerouted all of these taxpayers money straight to the credit people who control all the money. they sit on it and they are hoarding it. host: let's ask our guests when it was raised in the past committed to constitutional part of this ever come up? did people reference the 14th amendment then? guest: not really. there has been very little discussion on the debt ceiling. now a lot of people are finding out. up from my perspective, it is nice that you people are reading my article, but it has never come up very much. they can find it on www.sfrn.com and type in my last name under the list of my publications. it has not come up a lot.

when we raised the debt ceiling, how much did we raise it? when do we want this issue did come back again? we have not heard talked about bring much cheer, but you could imagine part of the issue would be to repeal the debt ceiling altogether. assuming some kind of deal, but they will have to decide when they want to next have this same game of chicken where we can argue about our future. host: here are the leading holders of u.s. securities. china, $1.15 trillion. japan, $906 billion. the u.k., $333 billion. oil exporters, $200 billion. brazil, $207 billion. the caribbean banking centers, russia, hong kong, and switzerland. fort worth, texas, on the republican line.

caller: i was wondering why we just cannot raise the debt ceiling and not pay everybody their taxes for like the next five years. do not do any refunds. how does the constitution handle that as far as tax refunds? does it say that they have to give us refunds? guest: if, hypothetically, we did not raise the debt ceiling and come to a resolution, would you still get refunds on taxes that we have paid? a lot of these legal issues about what happened exactly as we had these limits have yet to be resolved. there are a lot of the obscure treasury regulations looking anthology's technical questions about what exactly will happen. if we have some kind of crisis, everyone will want this to end. the islamic previous government shutdowns look like nothing. it will get resolved one way or another. it and what happens that we,

that future to our borrowing costs. host: next caller. caller: thank you. we have a radical group of republicans that have been working for years and years in the congress to deliberately do, what they call, to get rid of the social safety net programs that they have attacked openly. they have deliberately put us in debt with tax breaks, the wars in iraq and afghanistan. they have borrowed all of the money. grover norquist toll call them -- told all of them to not raise taxes under any reason, host: independent from utah. caller: thank you, c-span. our founding fathers would turn

over in their graves if they found out how much money we are putting our children in the dead. but they never wanted the constitution to deal with that. guest: our current levels of debt are sustainable. they are high levels of debt, but as a percentage of gdp, it is a lot lower than greece. it is a lot lower than italy. within the last couple of days, we realize they have serious problems. i do not know if the free market and a particular vision of how high are debt would be relative to gdp. they are huge, relative to the wealth we have it. economies expand over time. we have recessions, we have lifts, and we have declines. over the long term, economies grow. our economy will be much larger 30 years from now than it is today. that does not mean we want fiscal problems or we will be able to balance the books, but i think the notion that the

standard of living will be lower 30 years from now than today is completely inconsistent with several hundred years of economic history. host: republican from crescent city, fla. caller: one thing about the debt ceiling, whether it is constitutional or not, i can see the last few years were no budget has been passed by congress and spending, as far as i am concerned, has gotten out of hand. this is almost a break where people have to sit back in congress and think about what they're doing. i hope this is never done away with, although i think it could be lowered instead of raised. one other point i would like to make is as government rose and private employers shrink, the employers that are paying all of the salaries in addition to

their retirement funds and their health benefits, at what point does this become unsustainable? is this not also a large part of our debt? thank you for taking my call it. guest: at what point will reach the point of no return where we will actually default? not very long time and i think we will come back before that. at what point are we on this go trajectories so that if we did not change something it would lead to as the inability? we are there already, and particularly with medicare. health care inflation is so high, higher than the increase in gdp, medicare is progress in taking up a higher percentage of the budget. the question, for both parties, is how will we control the future growth of medicare so it does not get to the point where 50% of the economy, literally, is devoted to medicare spending?

host: 5 minutes left with michael abramowicz and our topic is the 14th amendment, section four. here is what the constitution says. we started the conversation for talking about how this got into the constitution. could you quickly go through that? guest: costly civil war, costly in lives and dollars. the union wanted to ensure that their debts would be honored and the confederate debt would be repudiated. if you look at the toltecs, the text you read was edited out -- people text says the union debt is honored and the language they use, which is part of the problem we have today, is it is not the clearest language you could imagine.

the validity of that is not in question. there is all lot of legitimate debate on that issue. host: satellite beach, fla., on the independent line. caller: he answered one of my questions that the debt ceiling may not violate the 14th amendment because it does was reached, the 14th amendment would compel the bond holding would be paid first and geithner or obama would have to pick and choose. i want to ask what secretary geithner has been doing now when he started messing with public employee pensions. i could not find a specific article that addresses that. he said he suspended investments, but those articles mentioned in the past that he suspended payments. i did not note there to be a case for public employees to bring a case saying that geithner can amass a public employee pensions because with that not be considered public debt? guest: a very good question.

it is clear that some pensions are included within the public debt. i suppose one might argue, although this has not been a part of the conversation, that some of these recent actions, could you argue? perhaps you could make the argument that some of those actions, to question the validity of those pensions. i think it is a stretch, probably, because i think geithner is looking to for statutory and regulatory a 32 verify what he is doing. we have not seen a failure to make payments on the pensions, but there could be an argument there. host: democratic line from gettysburg, pennsylvania. caller: i find the discussion intellectually dishonest. the debt ceiling will be raised because wall street and the special-interest groups, as they relate to the corporations, and all the other special interests are going to demand that it be

raised. i question about the preamble to the constitution. to ensure domestic tranquillity and promote the general welfare? i will listen offline. guest: could one argue, as some have argued in the past, that it does not have an effect on constitutional jurisprudence. could the preamble affect how we affect other interpretations? i do think you are right about special interests. partly because of the people who are funding their campaigns, both sides will ultimately want a deal done. but i think it gives the republicans a little more leverage is public opinion. we hear people on the democratic and republican lines here, people on the republican line say to lower the debt ceiling. the democratic line says we

should not explore it at all. there is a game of chicken. whoever is more committed to doing the things that no one wants to happen, that party will get a greater percentage of the pie in the negotiations. host: 1 minute left with michael abramowicz. republican, go ahead. caller: i am calling about the 14th amendment and the debt ceiling. i am a retired civil service. i retired military. i am a disabled veteran. with this budget deal going on, i am kind of worried about whether i will even get any money at all. host: we will leave it there. you're from george washington, not georgetown.

final thoughts? guest: think you or your service. eventually, this will get resolved. the question is whether it will be resolved before there is a crash, essentially, as we think of this in the game of chicken or after. we're not going to die. it would be bad. long term, we but keep making host: lawsuits? guest: guess, if there's of the failure to pay. >> in a few moments, a medal of honor ceremony at the white house. in half an hour, a british house

of commons hearing on allegations of illegal phone hacking by journalists. after that, the funeral for former first lady betty ford, who died on friday at the age of 93. on "washington journal" tomorrow, a look at u.s. military objectives in iraq and afghanistan with a member of the center for strategic and international studies. we will talk about the debt ceiling debate with the former chairman of the democratic national committee and a fox news commentator. live on c-span, every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> federal reserve chairman ben bernanke presents the semiannual monetary policy report to congress tomorrow morning. live coverage from the house financial services committee is on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. c-span has launched a new easy to navigate web site for

politics in the 2012 presidential race, with the latest events from the campaign trail, biographical information on candidates, twitter feeds and facebook updates, and links to media partners in the early primary and caucus states. visit us at c-span.org/ campaign2012. this sergeant is the first recipient of the medical -- of the medal of honor since the vietnam war. this ceremony was attended by fellow honor -- fellow army rangers and other medal of honor recipients. >> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states.

♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, accompanied by mendel of honor recipient sergeant first class leroy petrie. ["hail to the chief"] >> let us pray.

almighty and ever living god, you have given us this good land and this founding of our american heritage. we gather to recognize a man who has gone above and beyond the call of duty in defense of that heritage. in new providence, the sergeant 's valor and sacrifice served -- save the lives of his fellow rangers that day in afghanistan. by your grace, we know he continues to live today according to those values. you have woven the tapestry of this great nation. we pray that you will enable each of us to likewise live lives of valor and sacrifice every day, to continue reading the tapestry of america. we celebrate with the sergeant's wife, mother, father, grandparents, brothers, and children. we also remember his grandfather leo. we are grateful for all the

people and events you have used to mold this man who stands before us today. we are thankful for the rangers, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guard men giving their lives in this long conflict. give strength to their families and friends, dealing with the losses of friends and comrades. may your presence be with us in this hour. major grace be upon our national leadership. grant all in our military, especially those in harm's way, the strength that comes only from you. you will be honored in every endeavor to which you call america and her citizens. finally, your favor be upon the sergeant and his family. president coolidge once wrote a nation that forgets to defend itself will be forgotten. we as a nation hold him and those like him, who have given so much in our common defense, and forgotten. we come before you to pray in

your holy name. a man. -- amen. >> thank you, chaplain rutherford. please be seated. good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the white house as we present our nation's highest military decoration, the medal of honor, to an extraordinary american soldier -- sergeant first class leroy petry. this is a historic occasion. last fall, i was privileged to present the medal of honor to staff sergeant salvatore giunta for his heroism in afghanistan, and sal joins us this afternoon. where's sal? good to see you. so today is only the second time during the wars in afghanistan and iraq -- indeed, only the second time since vietnam -- that a recipient of

the medal of honor from an ongoing conflict has been able to accept this medal in person. and having just spent some time with leroy, his lovely wife ashley, their wonderful children, in the oval office, then had a chance to see the entire petry family here -- i have to say this could not be happening to a nicer guy or a more inspiring family. leroy, the medal of honor reflects the deepest gratitude of our entire nation. so we're joined by members of congress, vice president biden, leaders from across my administration, including deputy secretary of defense bill lynn, and leaders from across our armed forces, including the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general jim "hoss" cartwright, army secretary john mchugh, and army chief of staff general marty dempsey.

we're honored to welcome more than 100 of leroy's family and friends, many from his home state of new mexico, as well as his fellow rangers from the legendary delta company, 2nd battalion, 75th ranger regiment. and as always, we are humbled by the presence of members of the medal of honor society. today, we honor a singular act of gallantry. yet as we near the 10th anniversary of the attacks that thrust our nation into war, this is also an occasion to pay tribute to a soldier, and a generation, that has borne the burden of our security during a hard decade of sacrifice. i want to take you back to the circumstances that led to this day. it's may 26, 2008, in the

remote east of afghanistan, near the mountainous border of pakistan. helicopters carrying dozens of elite army rangers race over the rugged landscape. and their target is an insurgent compound. it's broad daylight. the insurgents are heavily armed. but it's considered a risk worth taking because intelligence indicates that a top al qaeda commander is in that compound. soon, the helicopters touch down, and our rangers immediately come under fire. within minutes, leroy -- then a staff sergeant -- and another soldier are pushing ahead into a courtyard, surrounded by high mud walls. and that's when the enemy opens up with their ak-47's. leroy is hit in both legs.

he's bleeding badly, but he summons the strength to lead the other ranger to cover, behind a chicken coop. he radios for support. he hurls a grenade at the enemy, giving cover to a third ranger who rushes to their aid. an enemy grenade explodes nearby, wounding leroy's two comrades. and then a second grenade lands -- this time, only a few feet away. every human impulse would tell someone to turn away. every soldier is trained to seek cover. that's what sergeant leroy petry could have done. instead, this wounded ranger, this 28-year-old man with his whole life ahead of him, this husband and father of four, did something extraordinary. he lunged forward, toward the

live grenade. he picked it up. he cocked his arm to throw it back. what compels such courage? what leads a person to risk everything so that others might live? for answers, we don't need to look far. the roots of leroy's valor are all around us. we see it in the sense of duty instilled by his family, who joins us today -- his father larry, his mother lorella, and his four brothers. growing up, the walls of their home were hung with pictures of grandfathers and uncles in uniform, leading a young leroy to believe "that's my calling, too." we see it in the compassion of a high school student who overcame his own struggles to

mentor younger kids to give them a chance. we see it in the loyalty of an army ranger who lives by a creed: "never shall i fail my comrades." or as leroy puts it, "these are my brothers -- family just like my wife and kids -- and you protect the ones you love." and that's what he did that day when he picked up that grenade and threw it back -- just as it exploded. with that selfless act, leroy saved his two ranger brothers, and they are with us today. his valor came with a price. the force of the blast took leroy's right hand. shrapnel riddled his body. said one of his teammates, "i had never seen someone hurt so bad." so even his fellow rangers were amazed at what leroy did next. despite his grievous wounds, he remained calm.

he actually put on his own tourniquet. and he continued to lead, directing his team, giving orders -- even telling the medics how to treat his wounds. when the fight was won, as he lay in a stretcher being loaded onto a helicopter, one of his teammates came up to shake the hand that leroy had left. "that was the first time i shook the hand of someone who i consider to be a true american hero," that ranger said. leroy petry "showed that true heroes still exist and that they're closer than you think." that ranger is right. our heroes are all around us. they're the millions of

americans in uniform who have served these past 10 years, many -- like leroy -- deploying tour after tour, year after year. on the morning of 9/11, leroy was training to be a ranger, and as his instructor got the terrible news, they told leroy and his class, "keep training, you might be going to war." within months leroy was in afghanistan for the first of seven deployments since 9/11. leroy speaks proudly of the progress our troops have made -- afghan communities now free from the terror of the taliban and afghan forces that are taking more responsibility for their security. and he carries with him the memories of americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice to make this progress possible. earlier in the oval office, leroy gave me the extraordinary privilege of showing me the small plaque that is bolted to his prosthetic arm. on it are the names of the fallen rangers from the 75th regiment. they are, quite literally, part of him, just as they will always be part of america.

one of those names is of the ranger who did not come back from the raid that day -- specialist christopher gathercole. christopher's brother and sister and grandmother are here with us today. i would ask that they stand briefly so that we can show our gratitude for their family's profound sacrifice. our heroes are all around us. they're the force behind the

force -- military spouses like ashley, who during leroy's many deployments, during missed birthdays and holidays, has kept this family army strong. so we're grateful to you, ashley, and for all the military spouses who are here. they're military children, like brittany and austin and reagan, and seven-year-old landon, who at the end of a long day is there to gently rub his dad's injured arm. and so i want to make sure that we acknowledge these extraordinary children as well.

our heroes are all around us. they're our men and women in uniform who through a decade of war have earned their place among the greatest of generations. during world war ii, on d-day, it was the rangers of d company who famously scaled the cliffs of pointe du hoc. after 9/11, we learned again -- "rangers lead the way." they were some of the first boots on the ground in afghanistan. they have been deployed continuously ever since. today, we can see our progress in this war and our success against al qaeda, and we're beginning to bring our troops home from afghanistan this summer. understand there will be more fighting - and more sacrifices - in the months and years to come. but i am confident that because of the service of men and women like leroy, we will be able to

say of this generation what president reagan once said of those rangers who took the cliffs on d-day -- "these are the heroes who helped end a war." i would ask all of our rangers -- members of the 9/11 generation -- to stand and accept the thanks of a grateful nation. finally, the service of leroy petry speaks to the very essence of america -- that spirit that says, no matter how hard the journey, no matter how steep the climb, we don't quit.

we don't give up. leroy lost a hand and those wounds in his legs sometimes make it hard for him to stand. but he pushes on, and even joined his fellow rangers for a grueling 20-mile march. he could have focused only on his own recovery, but today he helps care for other wounded warriors, inspiring them with his example. given his wounds, he could have retired from the army, with honor, but he chose to re-enlist -- indefinitely. and this past year he returned to afghanistan -- his eighth deployment -- back with his ranger brothers on another mission to keep our country safe. this is the stuff of which heroes are made. this is the strength, the devotion that makes our troops the pride of every american. and this is the reason that --

like a soldier named leroy petry -- america doesn't simply endure, we emerge from our trials stronger, more confident, with our eyes fixed on the future. our heroes are all around us. and as we prepare for the reading of the citation, please join me in saluting one of those heroes -- leroy petry. [applause] >> the president of the united states of america, authorized by act of congress, march 3, 1863, has awarded, in the name of congress, the medal of honor to staff sergeant leroy a. petry, united states army.

staff sergeant leroy a. petry distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty, in action, with an armed enemy in the vicinity of paktya province, afghanistan, on may 26, 2008. as a weapons squad leader with delta company, 2nd battalion, 75th ranger regiment, staff sergeant petry moved to clear the courtyard of a house that potentially contained high- value combatants. while crossing the courtyard, staff sergeant petry and another ranger were engaged and wounded by automatic weapons fire from enemy fighters. still under enemy fire and wounded in both legs, staff sergeant petry led the other ranger to cover. he then reported the situation and engaged the enemy with a hand grenade, providing suppression as another ranger moved to his position. the enemy quickly responded by maneuvering closer and throwing grenades. the first grenade explosion knocked his two fellow rangers

to the ground and wounded both with shrapnel. a second grenade landed only a few feet away from them. instantly realizing the danger, staff sergeant petry, unhesitatingly and with complete disregard for his safety, deliberately and selflessly moved forward, picked up the grenade, and in the effort to clear the immediate threat, threw the grenade away from his fellow rangers. as he was releasing the grenade it detonated, amputating his right hand at the wrist and further injuring him with multiple shrapnel wounds. although picking up and throwing the live grenade grievously wounded staff sergeant petry, his gallant act undeniably saved his fellow rangers from being severely wounded or killed. despite the severity of his wounds, staff sergeant petry continued to maintain the presence of mind to place a tourniquet on his right wrist before communicating the situation by radio in order to coordinate support for himself and his fellow wounded rangers. staff sergeant petry's

extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the 75th ranger regiment, and the united states army. [applause]

>> let us pray. lord, be upon us this day we all live the values and celebrate the commitment to our nation sergeant first class petry has modeled. give us strength this day and keep us always in your care as we pray in your holy name. amen. >> thank you all for attending this extraordinary ceremony for this extraordinary hero. i hope that all of you will join the family. there is going to be an

outstanding reception. i hear the food is pretty good around here. [laughter] and i know the music is great, because we've got my own marine band playing. so thank you so much for your attendance. and once again, congratulations, leroy, for your extraordinary devotion to our country. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[inaudible] ♪ [piano playing]

["danny boy" playing] ♪

>> good afternoon. first i like to thank the president for bestowing such a tremendous honor on myself. i think mr. and mrs. obama for their hospitality in inviting all my family and friends to the white house. accepting the award today was not only made easier by so many friends and family and mentors along the trip they got me all along the way today. i like to thank my wife, actually, my kids, brittany and ostia and reagan and landon, and with their love, i will continue to serve. military family sacrifice just as much as those who wear the uniform. please keep all the military families in your thoughts and prayers.

to be singled out is very humbling. i consider every one of our men and women in uniform serving here, abroad, to be our heroes. all of the uniformed services. they sacrifice every day and concerts -- deserve your continued support and recognition whenever you have a chance an opportunity to thank them, shake their hand, give them a pat on the back, because they have earned it. that is the greatest reward any service member can get, just a simple thank you. unlike also thank all the medical professionals taking care of me. they continue to take care of me. ranger medics on the battlefield, the doctors and nurses who took care of me in

afghanistan, in germany, brooke army medical center, and the subtle for intrepid -- center for intrepid predict amazing work with wondered lawyers and it is a testament to the dedication to our country shows with the medical resources we used to heal and those who literally left pieces of themselves on the battlefield. finally, i like to think the rangers have served with for the past 12 years. the officers and in co's of the 75th ranger regiment, the finest in the world and deserve much credit for who i am today. and to those rangers i have been fortunate enough to lead, during my years of service, you are the best soldiers in the army and it was my greatest honor to have been given the opportunity and responsibility to lead you. all like to also -- i would also

like to thank the gathercole family able to attend this great occasion. all of my fallen ranger brothers and servicemen and women of cross the uniformed services, i held them tear in my memory. i embrace the was there is still serving today overseas and every day abroad. thank you again. rangers lead the way. god bless the united states of america. >> thank you. >> in a few moments, a british house of commons meeting on allegations of phone hacking by journalists put in a little less than three hours, the funeral for former first lady betty ford who died on friday at the age of 93. >> on "washington journal"

tomorrow morning, a look get military objectives in iraq and afghanistan with stephanie sanok from the center for strategic and international studies. we will talk about the debt ceiling debate and the 2012 campaign with the former chairman of the democratic national committee tim kaine and fox news commentator tucker carlson. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> thorough reserve chairman ben bernanke presents the semi- annual policy report to congress tomorrow morning. live coverage from the house financial services committee is on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> now is the time to deal with these issues. if not now, when? >> the debt limit is the legal limit on all linked by the federal government. since 1962, it has been raised 74 times, the last time in february 2010. learn more and follow the process of raising the debt

ceiling on line with the c-span video library research, watch, clip, and share -- is washington your way. the british home affairs committee questioned several police officers yesterday about past and current investigations into alleged illegal phone hacking and bribery by journalists. the hearing focused on rupert product's newspaper and his company, if news international. this is a less than three hours. go >> people can move in and find available seats. thank you. you have your officials near

you. if has been alleged that the phone hacking committee has misled this committee. would it be possible to clarify for us what procedures are for investigating such allegations? >> thank you for giving me notice of the point of order. witnesses who gave evidence or mislead the committee who will be considered guilty. if they consider it serious enough to the content of the house, they will reported to the house. the house requires them to explain him or herself. the house may punish him or her for contempt. thank you. you were not on our list of people today that i -- but iphones you on sunday, and you agree to come in next -- but i

called you on sunday, and you agree to come in next week. >> allow me to make a short opening statement. >> yes. >> thank you. i am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you again on these matters, but i know from reading and listening to the media that concerns have been voiced about the interview i gave to "the sunday telegraph's." i've made it clear what i now know, i would have made different decisions, and i shared publicly my regrets in terms of the impact of those potentially affected. i would be concerned i am in any way considered to be disrespectful to this committee or any committee, but i can assure you i have never lied and all the information i have provided to this committee and others have been given in good faith. a brief expression of regret.

the article fairly reflect my views on these matters on the interview. i cannot speak to the first investigation. however, from my part, i made it clear to this committee in march said more could have been done regarding those potentially affected. however, i also reiterate it is a matter of great concern to that for whatever reason the news of the world now appears to have failed to cooperate in the way we now know they should have with relevant inquiries this year. they have only recently supplied information and evidence that would clearly have a significant impact on the decisions i took in 2009, had it been provided to us then. i think we can stop there, because that is helpful.

>> are rising directly out of that, can i take you out of the evidence you gave last time you appeared? you told may when i asked you about the pin numbers that had been found, that you went out of your way. i think the word you used was that even if there was the remotest possibility, i indicated last year to say even if there was the remotest possibility of someone may have been hacked, let's look and see if there is another category, and he went on to tell me and other committee and that is out of the spirit of caution to make sure the we are insuring those who may have been hiked are contacted by us. it turns out that did not happen. >> i do not want to get back into the debate, because i think it has been well aired in terms of legal issues, but i have agreed it was hard -- it was a

sturdy, but to the best of my intention, that is what we intended to do, and it was handed over to the inquiry, but that was my intention. we have had the debate about what constitutes hacking, and i have said to this committee and others in terms of i have always said -- can i finish? >> we would like to have brief answers. >> these are complex matters. >> they are complex, but i have looked at the transcript, an chance ofre is a misinterpretation. you explain the inquiry as "crap." are those your words? >> it was an unfortunate choice of words. i should not have used the phrase. >> you said we had issued amount

of information. for example, that they were hacked. who is your apologies for today? is it to the victims? is it to the family? is it to parliament? who are you apologizing to? >> i expressed regret that we did not do enough about dealing with those potentially affected by phone hacking, and i have held my hands up, and i passionately believe in doing the right thing, and i will hold my hands up. please do not take dionysian as affective. i accept responsive -- please do not take that as of factors. i accept responsibility even of until yesterday when you read about what took place.

please do not take that as an admission that i am accepting responsibility for that. >> we understand that. you have been very clear. specifically on what stephenson icu to do. good -- stevenson i ask you to do. he asked you to establish the facts. you took a day to do that. is that correct? >> we established the fact about the article in "the guardian." the purpose was to say was there anything new that we are not aware of, and was there any new evidence in that article that needs addressing? the plain fact, on that day there was not. you have seen the level of been and that i hadn'

subsequently saying there was nothing that requires further investigation. hindsight is a great issue, and i later found out that is not the case. in july, 2009, when i made that decision. >> you still maintain the inquiry you conducted an -- a look at the papers you have was pour. >> hindsight said it was. >> i am just going by your words in "the telegraph." you have made this clear. >> in hindsight, had i known what it shouldn't -- what i should have, it is a poor decision. i cannot say anything more than that, but the fact is we did not have the information we should have, and that is clear. >> i find it extraordinary that

you seek to divert the blame on wrongdoers. you clearly have to investigate people for doing wrong things triggered you are now saying it is because others do not cooperate -- for doing wrong things. you are now saying it is because others do not cooperate. do you accept responsibility democrats i accept some responsibility. >> the you expect wrongdoers' june cooperate and -- do you expect wrongdoers to cooperate? >> there is a process to gain that material. if the individuals who operate to a certain extent, and i will give you an example of letters we wrote on the 31st of august, 2006. my clients intend to provide

such material as you and your colleagues might reasonably required. >> we do not need lots of quotes from your letters. we accept what you just said. we are talking about your conduct, not "news international." >> in considering the questions i was suppose that i failed in my responsibility, part not -- that i was post that i failed in my responsibility, part of the question was what effect did we do to gain additional material, and the answer is there was nothing we could have done. the fact of the matter is news international carefully crafted letters to us indicating -- >> this was about you, not about what alleged wrongdoers were doing or not doing, so why did you not properly review the evidence that was at scotland yard? why did you not look at that

properly? >> there was nothing to indicate to me in july, 2009, but there was new material that would justify the investment of resources to go through that material. that material may have been placed in beanbags, but it was material that was gone through -- placed in bin bags, but that was material that was gone through. it was reviewed. >> you know when council is focused on a particular indictment, they are going to be focusing on evidence about that indictment. your responsibility was to look at matters outside of the individual indictment. you have thousands of pages of documents. why did you not look at them?

>> two people had gone to court. i think it is excepted there was nothing in that "guardian" article that said that is new. we knew about that, so what would possibly persuade made in the absence of new evidence to make those choices? >> we are going to move on, up because you all have questions for the witness. can we keep them as brief as possible? >> i understand you did not review this material on this date in july, but you wrote to us on the eighth of july's saying that the dtp ordered material. you know what came out of the?

the conclusion was it was responsibility of the ddp rather than the police? >> i think it was a joint responsibility. he took the choice to have a look at it himself, and he did it with counsel, but he came to the same conclusion as me on the basis and with what we knew then, and on this issue with the broad or narrow interpretation of the hacking and the role in fact, are you aware that they wrote to me on the 15th of april this year and appeared to adopt a narrow interpretation, as a dain i have given further interpret it -- say i have given further interpretation. the communication was no longer in the course of transmission,

and there can be no offense under transmission one? >> that is the view i thought we were given. >> all of the documentation over how the inquiry was shaped. i have seen one of the letters. >> have you or anyone on your behalf been contacted from "and news of the world" about your private life there might you know there are allegations to suggest that. >> absolutely, it is clearly like this. >> last time we saw you, you denied some of the things

that you said were misleading. now you say they proved to be inaccurate. what were the things you said were inaccurate? >> in terms of what i knew about what happened allegedly as things were investigated in terms of january this year, it is abundantly clear if i had about relevant documentation in 2009, they would make very different decisions about the scale of the investigation they conducted, but i need to be careful about saying more on that issue, so it is every answer i have given that has been in good faith on the basis of what i knew. i cannot be expected to recall each line, but not in light of

what i have been told and what are known now and -- in light of what i have known and what i know now, i have always said we would reopen the investigation if new material was provided. >> you would like to put on record your apology to this committee? >> in the same way i have written to the mayor and other people, if i have on wittingly misled this committee on the basis of idec -- i did not have the information, i regret that. >> said in march, you are aware of the conflict with news international and their reply about that. you said you talked with "the guardian."

given the fact that during the course of the investigation, you did engage with news international. >> i am not sure which time frames you are suggesting, but i have never investigated these matters. but has been very clear. >> can you speak up? >> i have never investigated these matters. they have come under my oversight. there has never been an investigation i have a lead in regards of these matters. the evidence came in january of 2011, and i handed is over. you have to be more precise about the day if you are talking about, mr. william. >> during the course of the investigation -- >> which investigation?

>> i think he means your review. >> were you in contact socially with the most senior people? >> at some point, i have, and i have been open about that, but it was not investigated at that point. the investigation was closed. i have not been in contact during the investigation under my oversight. >> what surprises a lot of people is that the ongoing investigation is whether or not you have been involved. that there is a very senior officer like yourself engaging, and it would not happen -- >> there are corrupt people in the metropolitan police. we know that.

there always will be it, but i .ad no idea as far as i am concerned, since she lie, 2009, disaffected two people. -- since july, 2009, this affected soo people. good -- two people. >> we will come back to this. in "the new york times" there was an article but seemed to confirm some of the points made. have you seen this article in? >> no. good >> it makes allegations and because of your personal life you were put under pressure can you categorically say that is not the case? >> i categorically state that is not the case. i think it is cowardly. that is not the case. it is untrue. >> can you confirm you have not

been hacked? nobody has ever suggested to you your telephone number was in the documents. >> it has been suggested to me, but not in the current investigations. >> what about operation yates, which lasted a day? >> touche. >> who told you this? >> from the method i know they use, i am 99% sure my phone was higher during 2006. who it was, i do not. >> your phone was hacked to? did this come up as a result of his investigation? >> no. >> when did it arrives? >> it arrived of my knowledge.

it was of particular difficult time. >> i have a question. i am astounded by the incompetence in being displayed here. >> she is resolved by the incompetence she has heard today. >> following your apology, why did you decide to only give an interview to "the telegraph's." >> it was a balance. i did not think it would be wise to give an interview to news international. he is always a balance. that was considered to be the most sensible outland. but is what happened. >> if it is your way of apologizing to the committee,

why did you release your press release? >> it needs to come across in a way that people can understand the context, and a press release is interesting, but the advice that i get in terms of how you get your message across is -- [inaudible] >> let's get to the message you were trying to get across. you said there was not enough evidence. you have 11,000 pages with eight hours of consideration and investigating officers. you decided there was no investigation. is that correct? >> the same thing i said. >> is that correct? >> i think she wants a yes or no answer. >> i want context around its. >> just enter the question.

-- just answer the question. your answer to "the telegraph" said you took eight hours to decide if did not need to be taken any further. >> i will have to give a qualified yes, because i will explain my previous answer, in terms of this was not a full review. i could go on. >> what was the legal advice from the? >> it was -- >> who were the people you took legal advice from her? >> is the answer that you did not take fresh legal advice? >> we have legal advice. >> you did not take fresh legal advice to? >> i did not. >> that is the question she was asking. the answer is no.

>> can i be clear about what i was out to do? i was asked to explain the facts of anything new. some cable people said, we know about -- some capable people said, we know about that. two or three lakers -- 2 or three days later they did the same thing and came to the same conclusion. >> this goes directly to the next question. this is what stephenson said. as a result, i have asked the assistant commissioner to establish the facts of that case and look into the detail, and i would anticipate making it a statement today, so he asked you to look of the facts and details. is that right? >> [inaudible]

can i ask why it took three years before you decided to even put it on a computer database? >> that is not the case. that is wrong, because on july 20, 2009, and there is documentation to support, that i asked for clear instructions on what i wanted to happen, and the purpose of that now is the level of concern but we had people writing about concern, so i took the decision 11 days. i think it was july 20, 2009, to put the matter on a searchable system from which we could draw information. you saying the article is incorrect? >> i would need to look at it.

>> i will come back to you. >> as an experienced police officer, and you find it surprising the people who may have committed criminal offenses do not necessarily what you cooperate with police democrats i do not, but i am going to get to what the production -- to cooperate with police democrats i do not, but i want to get bike to with the production -- >> i do not, but i want to get back to what the production was about. there is no indication, and i have read letters, and they were very careful about that. >> people may find it surprising if anyone else is suspected of criminal acts. >> that is not the case. is a lot. -- it is the law.

whatever it is, that is a lot as it stands at the moment -- the law as it stands of the moment. >> you previously looked up the investigation. if you rightfully achieved a thorough investigation following the evidence. can you explain the reason? >> i can, because it is a matter of looking at the evidence. the evidence we should have had in 2009 has resulted in a huge investigation, which they will be speaking about, which is following the evidence. we simply were not provided with that material when we should have been. >> how were you able to achieve the evidence that you were able to use? >> it is a different

investigation. there are a number of lines of inquiry. i have followed the evidence, and i have been criticized a number of times, but that is the process. >> i am going to hand you a list of names that has come off "the guardian" blog, but you have been warned concerning the fact of phones have been blocked, and i want you to look at it now to see whether or not you recognize the names. one of the names is gordon brown, the former prime minister. while you look at the files, was there any mention of the prime ministers' names or the name of the chancellor of the exchequer, both of whom have been warned that their phones had been

hacked. is that the first time you have seen that list of names? >> yes. and my own name. >> you did not see that during the review? >> no. >> one of the major concerns we all have of this is a relatively low priority given to this investigation. the excuse smith continues to be given is the counter-terrorism regarding the airline, and while the committee can understand that, i am a little concerned that when we sat at your desk in 2009, you did not perhaps consider this report from 2006, which said that investigations uncovered evidence of widespread confidential

information. among those are many journalists and looking for a story. this includes 305 named journalists working for a range of newspapers. were you aware of this report and the fact that there was this kind of industrial-level hacking going on of the term and? -- up the terms? >> i was aware of the report. >> what is your question? >> did you not think it might be appropriate to go back over the documents and and look at them and see whether there was any additional evidence recovered to

see whether there might bee considered? >> it is a side question, -- sad question, but when you consider what are the other issues, there is some play no reason -- there is simply no reason, and in light of what we now know, it is not a good decision. it was solely as a result of new information from those who clearly misled us. >> was there evidence that you had not look that this case because you have more to get on to? >> there was an element of that.

>> you did not even take legal advice. >> it was collected by counsel. it was a short while later, but it came to the same conclusion. >> on that day you did not take legal advice. did you speak to mr. heymann and mr. clark about the case? >> no, i did not. i spoke to williams. >> he said everything was fine? >> we had a detailed conversation about the investigation in terms of how it was manus. i think i referred to a range of issues. if >> thank you, mr. michael. >> a new investigation would arise from new evidence or from

general concern that would indicate a need to take a fresh look at the evidence. in september, 2010, you were unable to tell me whether an investigation was taking place of the time. was there? >> we were escaping the information that was being published in "the new york times" i think on some timber third, last year, and it was -- on september 3, last year, and it was amazing in terms of the amount of cooperation. >> was there a live investigation? >> they went for advice in terms of anything required. i think i referred to it in the last paragraph of my letter. it did not meet the evidence threshold. >> looking at your letter, a lot of people were under the impression that in 2009 and in

2010, your role was to review the investigation. your letter emphasizes you did not conduct a review based on that evidence. can you explain what you and your team did do in 2009? >> i think to this committee, i made it very clear in the transfer of -- in the transcripts what i did about those matters, and there was a range of places i touched on in terms of what it looked like, and i can provide that, but it was around the

>> you told us about new evidence. but there was evidence available in 2006 that should of been pursued at that time. >> that may well be the case. it is a matter of regret. >> you carried out the review and we want to know what the evidence was available to you when you carry out that review. you had bags full of evidence, is that right? >> yes. >> was all that evidence read by police officers? >> my understanding is that it was individually considered and reviewed. but other understanding is that it was by police officers.

my understanding is that it is probably their investigation, not mine, but i cannot really account for that. it was not for my watch. -- on my watch. it was reviewed for relevance by counsel during the course of the admitting investigation. that gave me a level of assurance that it had been looked at. >> the material available to you in 2006, did disclose the names of any one subject of phone hacking or any of the journal's concerned other than appeared on the indictment and trial subsequently held? >> there is a huge amount of paper. i cannot say. >> why not? >> because i do not know what the 11,000 pages say. >> surely that is an important

question. >> you cannot possibly know the names on 11,000 pages. >> if you ask the police officers carrying out the investigation if there any other people who have not been mentioned in the trial or any of that journalist who had been involved in phone hacking? [unintelligible] >> where across passages. >> let me be clear. but your question again. >> or any other victims of phone hacking or journalists involved in the fun hacking who have come to light in the material in your hands 2006 which was not disclosed that trial? >> the only aspect i was aware of in my memory is the name

neville. and that may be the chief reporter. neville fellbeck. that is the only other name i can recall very that, too, is subject and is relevant to an evidential standard and was also reviewed by the others. it was a written separation that just the name neville would not meet that threshold required to review it further. >> had any other reporters been interviewed? >> others will talk whether they have or have not, [unintelligible] >> pushing this back all of the parliament, are you aware that

in fact some people whose names turned up in 2006 took out private investigations and discovered through that that the police had their names in their possession? >> i think that as a matter of public record and there is additional -- a judicial review under way and we will have to wait for that. >> you do not sound like that dogged, determined investigator. there was a lack of cooperation [unintelligible]

the dismissals is that that list of the conclusion? it is systematic. another example. >> when your reminder it is that you are not going to come out was that an unfortunate choice of words? >> i just cannot think, i have many people working under me. i do not think you actually expect me what the responsibilities that i had, terrorism detection, i don't think you would want me examining every piece of paper. there's a command structure under me that allows that happen.

>> most people what think that maybe someone should have gone there. >> i have not looked at examples of the material. >> if someone had looked, you would've known that there were 4000 names and that is something you did not know. new evidence. >> i've always said that the potentially hundreds of people affected needed private investigators. >> when you said that this -- did you mean that your behavior [unintelligible] >> some of the decisions i have taken in terms of what i know now, if i knew then what i know now, they would have been different. at make it does look damaging. as i say, i am very happy to hold my hands up, but do not

take that as a commission that i am responsible. >> do you feel that your behavior has damaged it? >> i do not think it is my behavior. in terms of where -- do i wish we could turn the clock back, yes i do. >> but specifically on this point, you mentioned that trust that you felt was perhaps at risk because what has happened in a way. given what you have said and apologies you have made, have you considered your position as to whether or not you should continue in your present position, bearing in mind that you have accepted that this is a fundamental error in the way in which this inquiry was conducted? have you offered to resign? >> no, i have not offered to resign, and if you are suggesting that i should in my

small part of it, then i think that that is unfair. >> i am just putting to you what we have been asked to put to you. >> i have not considered it. >> thank you. we will go to quick questions and then as we have other witnesses, mr. yates needs to be released to do and is other work as the head of counterterrorism. and not spend all morning with us. can i go through quick questions for each member's? >> you said in answer to question put by several of my colleagues that you did not handle this investigation the same way as you had a previous one because you are just following the evidence. here you had a 11,000 pages and it was obvious, was it not, that there was more to it than the two people involved and said you did not follow the evidence in this case? >> felt the evidence had been followed. >> you knew that there were 11,000 pages sitting there. it was not just about the two

people that were repeatedly mentioned peridots to people were involved in royal and national security. it was not on humdrum case. you have 11,000 pages per union dozens if not hundreds of other people were involved. it was national security implications. you will still having dinner with journalists afterwards. is that right? >> what is the question? >> despite the fact that you had not yet conducted and thorough inquiry. >> i thought that i had. i am not happy now because i know things look different now in the light of the information. >> can i asked have you ever receive payments from anybody relating to the information that you have?

>> it is an amazing question and i have never received any payments of that sort. >> at any of your officers received any payments of that sort that you know? >> i think it is highly probable. the allegations have been carefully investigated. an organization of 50,000 people, we have always said from time immemorial that some of those people would be correct. it is an ongoing investigation. we do not comment on it now. >> were you aware of or in discussions with the media servers or anyone else where they're concerns about alienating "news of the world" are any other outlet? >> never appear you'll never find any records of such. -- never. you will never find any records of such. >> one of the major casualties

of the scandal will be public confidence in the police more widely. do you think that new procedures need to be improved significantly? >> it is involved a lot time and effort, since 1996. i have been involved with it. there's a very significant element to that. part of that is of vetting sensitive post. we will always accept that we can learn from you investigations. if there is corruption in the net, as i said is likely, we want to assure that they are still wet. investment becomes an issue around service of the post. -- sent to the post. -- sensitive posts. >> your the person who bought

into the new evidence but looking at the scale of the wrongdoing which has been revealed, the spread it and the stars-like approach that has been taken, i do think the public should feel about this? >> i think they should be feeling extremely reassured that the met has invested in a new investigation in terms of how they feel now, was the question, and they should be reassured that a new investigation under different command structure with significant resources attached to it is following the evidence, as they have now seen. and i cannot repeat that often enough. >> can i just put it on records, i do not myself believe for one moment that you received any

payment from filburn " news international." last night, one of your former colleagues describe you as a very competent officer. then he went on to say when he was being questioned about to position, he said, you will have to make -- he will have to make his own decision on whether he feels his position is untenable. do you really feel, mr. yates, that you can continue in your position? >> yes, i do. >> after all that has happened, the confidence with the public and the met? >> the right thing in this case was to hold my hands up about the regret that i feel. i do feel about that about the way things were handled. that is not a resignation matter in my view. >> the ddp consulted about the

initial advice is now working for "news international." on reflection, what share of responsibility to yet they should be borne by the cpx for failing to fully investigate? >> i think that there is some form of flexibility. i've always said and i will say again the difficulties for others, so there is some collective responsibility. operation decisions of for us. -- are for us. it is a collective responsibility. >> you said that the question of repressed the brooks -- rebecca brooks'future is a matter for

conscience. how was your conscience? >> i have accepted the areas where we could do better. my conscience is clear in that i have respect -- expressed regrets for that. if you cannot be allowed to express regrets and make money -- some states, it will be a sad state of affairs. >> was a mistake to talk about the victim's commit given into except you did not carry out the review? >> it gave back to the little of buys and what we could approve. it is a doll semantic point. >> do you think it was right to be so clear and categorical when actually you could not possibly have known because you have not reviewed all of the evidence? >> i just went with the legal it buys. -- advise.

>> what was your inquiry for? what was the previous inquiry? >> that is a matter for the new inquiry answer. the inquiry in shape to make it manageable in the context that was happening at the time. i think that as a matter for them to answer. >> in terms of the victims, the last time you hear, specifically concerning mr. bryant, have all the victims as far sure where have been contacted? in respect to the evidence you give us last time, and you talked about the mobile phone companies being contacted. i'm not sure if bajaur where they get evidence to us and they told me they received no instructions. not about the current operation, but when you were conducting it. >> there is a range of correspondence with the fund companies. in retrospect, it may have not

been followed through in the way it should have been done. i know one company absolutely follows the instructions to the latter. and others did not. that is a matter that needs to be reviewed. >> whenever we ask you to come give evidence, you do turn up and give evidence. it is the view of the committee that your evidence today is unconvincing. and there are more questions to be asked about what happened when you conducted this review you may well be hearing from us again with regard to this matter. we are very grateful that you have come today. if i could summarize, your apology is to the victims, to the family of many, and all the others. your policy is to this committee and for any perceived damage there is to the metropolitan police. is that right? >> that is right. >> could i call mr. peter clark?

spread the inquiry with news international because of the cooperation more broadly. and you've heard concert -- conversations about this is your. following the arrest, a large enough amount of information was seized. i've been told that it amounted to 11,000 pages.

"news international" was offering no an investigation. the only avenue for further investigation would of been to that material per week considered an exhaustive analysis of this material paired with decided against it for the following reasons. >> who said that? >> me in my fellow investigators. >> or the other people you're talking to? >> the hierarchy of the commander and a range of other colleagues who are actually there. >> proceed. >> given the wider context of counter-terrorism with immediate threats to the british public, involving gross breaches of privacy but no apparent threat of physical harm to the public, i could not justify the huge expense of resources of a

protected period. a team of officers were detailed to examine the documents and identify potential victims were there might be security concerns. the second reason why we did not do a full analysis -- the original objectives could be achieved a the following measures. first of all, a high profile prosecution and imprisonment of the senior journalist of a national newspaper. secondly, collaboration with the mobile phone industry to prevent such invasions of privacy in the future. and briefing the government, including the home office and cabinet office, designed to alert them to the activity and assure national security concerns could be addressed. and there was also liaison information with the commissioner's office. there'd been close information -- cooperation with my office and the mobile phone industry throughout the investigation.

there were certain categories of potential victims and there were informing others to see if they wanted to contact police. i've since learned that the strategy did not work as intended. as the committee has learned. that as a matter of profound regret. it is utterly regrettable that as a result of the decision not to conduct a detailed analysis of the material seized, attack and it projects a cacophony of victims that i did not note did not receive the support that they deserved. i refer to the victims of a crime. and the accounts of the investigation would not be all -- without reference to counter- terrorism at the time did in 2002, there have been a steady rise in the number of terrorist plots against the uk. london had been attacked in 2005 and is it given rise to the largest investigation ever carried out in the uk. by early 2006, we were investigating transatlantic

airlines in mid flight. many were arrested in 2006, the day after the reporters. the anti-terrorist branch had more than 70 live investigations carried the reality was that some of these were not being investigated because we did not have the staff to do so. i have been asked whether we could have returned to the on access to material after the arrest. the answer quite simply is no. by december we were embroiled in a murder and london and plots in haymarket and class code. -- glascow. in 2007, will lead to the conviction of dozens of people for terrorism. there were cases where there had already been conditions and

there was no certainty of the convictions giving the nature of legislation in the circumstances. i can all longer speak to the metropolitan peace the less police force. i think they're actually looking forward to set out in detail the forthcoming in judgment in a calm forensic environment, the integrity of objectivity, and the skill with which they went about their jobs in 2006. if at any time news international could have of arden some meaningful cooperation instead of prevarication and what we now know to be lies, we would not be here today. >> could i ask, did you think of issuing a press statement or released to the media saying that news international was not cooperating? >> at what stage? >> at any stage. >> i could not do that in and

dance of the court case in 2007. >> after that period? >> i do not think that i did, now. >> and regret you have expressed in your statement, you're very helpful statement today, is to? to whom are you regretting? are you apologizing to the victims? are you saying you just regret the fact that you have not carried out -- who is that regret toward? >> it has to be the victims of a crime, it always is. because of the strategy we put in place in the last week of august 2006 has not operated as intended, clearly there are people who it found that they have been the victims of hacking. obviously most importantly, the victims of crime. they have found some of the most distressing things about what was happening to their private

lives and the invasion of their privacy. >> for the record, you have had no hospitality given to you or it in connection whatsoever with news international? >> during my time of serving in the metropolitan police, there were occasionally organized by the directors of public affairs meetings with the crime reporters association, print and broadcast, there were occasions certainly on which i would meet groups of reporters and usually broadcast media and other weeks print media? >> any private meetings? >> note. -- no. >> i find your evidence today hard to excess, particularly with the parameters that might explain water to things. in the normal course of policing, if an offense is

discovered and discovered, they will investigate the further offense. if you find someone [unintelligible] >> it is highly different categories. the only thing you could possibly allowing this to would be an enormous fall were you focus the investigation in the early stage. you focus on trying to prove those defenses. and you do put parameters around investigations. it is a completely normal investigative process. it the first indication was that there was something within the royal household. that is what we will investigate. >> did you suspect that there were other journalists involved for smart >> yes, which is why we proceeded as far as we could.

>> you've told us that one of the reasons why you did not choose to investigate further is that your concern that victims would continue to be victimized. that the and fences were investigated. >> what i was trying to say there was a summit if we tried to mount an investigation into every potential victim which was beginning to emerge from our work with the phone companies, that could have taken months or potentially even years to bring to the point where we could bring prosecution. >> what they continue to be victimized if the police found out it was victimizing? >> we did not know the full scope of how many people were being victimized. it was clearly water than the initial parameters of the investigation. if we tried to conduct a full investigation to find out the full brunt of it, it could take

potentially months. if we cannot possibly start going to victims in advance of an arrest phase because clearly that would become public knowledge sooner or later, bearing in mind the nature of some of the victims. if they have become public knowledge, clearly those who were responsible could well have destroyed or lost evidence. >> what i'm saying here is that we have let this go on for months, if it is completely unacceptable breach of individual privacy would continue. and that was not the right thing to do. we can all have the benefit of hindsight, but what does emerge sense, that was at catastrophic decision that you took. it allowed this network of spying and corruption to continue. untouched. >> i would have to disagree with that. as i said, the original objective -- >> if you it done as early we would not have this enquirer

televised if you had done this earlier, we would not have this inquiry. >> to stop what the illicit access to people. as far as i am aware, by and large, after 2006, because of our work with the mobile phone company in getting the protective security arrangements around voicemails changed, plus now hacking no longer continue. >> when the mobile phone companies came, they were very critical of the metropolitan police. there were waiting to inform the victims. and you never told them to inform the victims. >> two different things here, sir. we're talking about the protective measures to stop the voicemail hacking, then i believe they were entirely successful. >> but the victims. >> have already said that the victim strategy did not work as

intended. that is a matter of great regret. >> you cannot take an exhaustive analysis of the material seized. does that mean it was not read? >> officers with the tail. -- were detailed, one to look for evidence relevant to the charges. the second objective is to make sure that obligations in terms of disclosure under the criminal procedures investigation at work to fill. that was done by police officers and then looked at by counsel. and then third, the potential victims. >> so all the material was read. >> i cannot say that all material or is red. it was a manual search at that time.

i cannot be absolutely certain. i was not there looking over other people soldiers. the-shoulders -- other people's shoulders. >> will not ask your team that they had read all the documents before releasing the ball? >> not necessarily. >> even though some of those names are very important people? >> those immediately jumped out were notified. >> i think the question being put to you, in that study of the material, did you find the names of other victims of hacking and other journalists who were involved in the hacking, apart from those on the indictment?

did you find victims of crime? >> i was certainly not aware of the victims of crime. >> other names of victims? >> there other people that probably had been, and we can only tell if someone had been a victim of hacking from the technical data from the mobile phone company. if they told us that somebody's voice mouth had been access, then they were informed. yes. >> we're dealing with a complex case, and you're faced with an individual who will not cooperate, would not make a -- what that not make you suspicious that they had something to hide? >> not only suspicious, but be certain that they had something to hide.

i think has been explained many times before this committee that there was correspondence edited to between us and news international pared the letters that were sent from the metropolitan police were put together with the crown prosecution service. i know that the people were looking at this were very frustrated at finding what they thought was a legal impasse. >> or they subjected to an exhaustive analysis, the photographs? >> given the complete lack of cooperation from news international, the only way to get into this was an exhaustive analysis of all that material. i've already explained that because of the range of other life-threatening activities going on at the time in terms of terrorist attacks, i took the decision that this did not justified.

>> i'm sure that you can appreciate that your willingness but the prosecution happen. >> it is a banal point, but would you expect criminals to investigate -- cooperate with the police? of course you do not. i do not mean to be flippant. this is the global organization with access to the best legal advice. in my view, deliberately trying to thwart a criminal investigation. >> you think that news international may have a case? >> i am correct -- i am sure that i cannot say. i'm sure they were acting on instructions. >> could you see that in the news international journalists were there? >> could you repeat that please?

>> surely you could have looked in the 11,000 pages to see if there were the names of any other news international journalists, and then use that information to go further? >> it is possible. i am not sure that skimming 11,000 pages is an exercise that can be done. to the best of my knowledge, i did not know that mr. bryant had been hacked. >> why did not do anything when it emerged that gordon taylor had been given a pay off by news international? >> bayh then i have retired from the police service. >> mr. clarke, any evidence that you gave, why did not do it and exhaustive search of an example of the evidence?

>> just trying to reflect on that. a simple question and no simple answer. if you like me to consider why i did not do part of the job, either you do the job properly or you do not do it at all. i consider the decision at the time was person -- perfectly reasonable. i had to weigh up the balance between privacy. >> what you've done that job better with a sample of the evidence that you had? >> i cannot say. it is pure speculation. >> you say that the law stop you because you're up against in international organization. if a lot does not allow fishing

expeditions, but it would of supported you if you had obtained sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable suspicion, if you have been able to obtain access and no amount of lawyers with unable to stop you for the question is, there were 11,000 pages sitting not properly reviewed. i suggest they could have been reviewed and should of been reviewed and what of disclosed evidence that would allow the police to obtain legal access to the news international and maybe others. >> that is a degree of speculation. i've already explained the reason why i made the decision not to have them reviewed at the time. >> according to the guardian, letters of the royal family, you were tasked with protection ultimately. this is a matter of relating to

royal protection as ours in new. when not it had been an obvious thing to do to investigate the matter for the police? >> is that i was tasked with royalty protection ultimately. >> i thought you told the committee that you are eventually test to investigate this matter because you have oversight over royal. >> know. i think you're referring to the fact that i was commander of the royal protection department back before. i then i have responsibility then. >> you should not done the research that he suggests. >> what if given new legal grounds to obtain access? >> i do not know if it would reveal further evidence. we did not carry out the exercise.

>> did you at any time speak to the dpp? >> i did not. >> that no contact. who sought the legal advice? >> the senior investigating officer working with a special division. that would ban the detective chief superintendent. >> you know for a fact that they did consult the dpp? >> i doubt the dpp was personally involved. >> we have a letter from them saying that they have oversight on this. >> i think if been very straight with this committee. i think the error was drawing the boundaries are too narrowly. i suspect that you agreed that

with hindsight it could have been broader. we might of been able to do even more work. my question is actually, in 2006, the information allowed command papers to parliament. [unintelligible] from his perspective, this was a major issue. it goes on -- details of a huge range of cases. did that not start and the alarms that you had evidence and you knew that this was a high priority, did that night mickey

think it should be looked into it together? >> in 2006, i was unaware of those reports. i was focused on terrorism issues. >> should someone else had been aware of this and brought them together? >> someone else probably should have. >> was there a feeling [unintelligible] >> i cannot agree with that. >> you've described this as a global organization, a large media outlet in what it can do, and it made no difference whatsoever? >> if there been any feeling of the kind you describe, it would

been unlikely that office would on an unannounced to the news international building and face the sort of hostility and obstruction that they gave. >> could you speak up? >> [unintelligible] this hostility and obstruction, surely if anything, that could be a discouragement knowing that dogs of war to be viewed without hesitation grid to mark -- without hesitation? >> it might make them more determined rather than less. >> you said that you socialized with reporters, and no one would have suspected otherwise.

it was perfectly above board. socializing with monsignor people at news international, would that be true about the colleagues? >> can i speak for what they did. >> you're not aware one way or the other. >> no, i was not. >> to be helpful to understand the scale of your investigation. where did it right in your day- to-day work? was your investigation the only investigation you were conducting at the time? >> no, under my underside -- oversight there were 70 investigations. >> award it right in terms of priority? >> you cannot place are right on it. >> up but third, middle third? >> it certainly would not compete with any other investigation of the safety of

the public. it depended on what the stage of the investigation was at. i am not being offered. -- awkward. we kept it very tight and i would say there were 10 to a dozen varied when it came to the arrest and search, we aren't officers from other specialties, and on the day of the searches and arrests, there were as many as 60. >> about 10 to 11 officers working day today, supported by additional officers at various times. and what situation of that investigation from beginning to end? >> beginning his december 2005, until the convictions which i believe to be in january 2007.

>> do you feel that the message in your getting from the command structure was that you should not be prioritizing this investigation in the context of all the other terrorist-related activities you were involved in? >> absolutely not. it was my decision. >> what troubles most of us is the 11,000 pages of material for in the end best to get your -- and the investigator. -- any investigator. is there anyway that you could review the material and screen

out any other connections? that is what we do not understand. [unintelligible] this was a mine field that got everyone's attention. >> absolutely. it is a mistake to think that we were solely focused on the two reporters. i meant extract from this morning tyrian we were trying to find any other conspirators. if the evidence would of been forthcoming, we would have followed it. >> [unintelligible] it must have been there. >> it was there in the material. to say we did not do an exhaustive met -- analysis -- >> was there some purpose by

which it was reviewed with you could not see any other people? i cannot figure out the names are coming up, people go into that material, again and again. >> i think i am right in saying that in the initial stages, about 28 people were actually informed that they were potentially being the victims of hacking as a result of the initial review of that. i agree, the analysis of 11,000 pages was not comprehensive. >> final question. >> i understand you made a very clear statement of what your priorities were when conducting terrorism. and a lower order of putting the administrative tasks after it was there any consideration given to stripping out the non- terrorism related aspects of

your command? putting resources and responsibilities to other parts of the crime director r. whatever? >> it was not really business for the anti-terrorism branch. it came to was as a national security issue. forgive me, but could i pass the investigation on to somebody else? i think it is a realistic point, and i thought about it and it is reflected in the decision lots at the time. of the previous two years, i'd arctic and stripping out parts of

devote offices to this? at the judgment? i did not make it. >> in your answer, where is it? they give this to you in order to give you the maximum rate soars. there was the obvious benefit of hindsight. might it not be enough? >> i do not see where i could have put it to.

i think it is quite sufficient over the past few years. >> they put it as their responsibility. quit>> amash to push up. >> we remain puzzled at the time in the investigation. this was not properly analyzed for what ever reason. he came right at the stop. you regret that certain things were not done. you seem to be quite defensive. you say you have done the best

thing. >> the regret is quite simply that people who have suffered enough already are being the victims of a crime and now finds that because of the activities of the news of the world, that their suffering has been increased. as a result, part to the strategy appeared to have worked >> had that words coming you would have been very satisfied? >> i would have been satisfied with the inquiry we conducted. i cannot be happy that they turned that it contained important affirmation. >> we got that message. thank you very much.

>> could we call our next witness? >> speaking he wished. you have not reply to this letter. this evidence is replied. >> can i clarify that? a gives the impression that i completely blank. is built into your office.

>> there is a shorter version. >> i will stop and cleared out of the way if i may. your relationship. i'm surprised want to ask about it. when to start negotiations and become an employee? >> i was approached by several newspapers. that is something i always wanted to do. there is the aspiration. it turned out to be punishable. i chose to go the time. there is an agreement.

and i retired on paper. it'll be delighted thousand eight. >> were there no alarm bells ringing? you have action been investigated by news international. >> you knew exactly what was happening with regard to the investigation. he knew there items and not been properly looked into. the not occur to you that this was not the best decision and that you should go to the very people you were investigation? we have now heard that they were most uncooperative in respect of the investigation that was being conducted. >> ps.

>> it was in the front page. there is no level. i did not know them. anything in the back pocket is unfounded. you heard it from other ones.

>> she continued to write this? >> there are investigations. i satisfy the should continue? >> it is public. you are in a select committee. >> i can show it to you. in descending that i think all parties should be aligned to. both parties are private. >> yet to be suspended or dismissed.

>> e r a voluntary part of this decision. had it cross your mind that each and are really be involved? >> it is more appropriate when a contract it together. i want to have that as a private conversation. it is right that you continue to have private dinners in meetings with news international. >> i put it there. they are not the only people. i had the responsibility for the media. it was consistent.

with any suggestion or hints rubbish.iit, wher eit is i think i put this in the public domain. >> would you raise the concerns of this. >> would you have this? you have colleagues. were you not cooperating? >> i will have to check the dates. one other thing of course is that they had regular contact, they did. there were corporative and

helped us. it helped us. he wouldn't have a relationship with other people as well. it is strange. they wear away at that they were being investigated -- they were being aware that they were being investigated. >> one thing was the timing. my recollection is that it is professional. it is something on the table. i do not remember when it went in.

there were allegations said there is some bonds. they were basically not there. would you like to put this on the record? >> these are all suggestions there was the stock english. >> i have not got a clue.

i do not know. i really do not know. the sec can point -- the second point around motives, we have already heard. it was unethical. how could i ever have stopped in live investigation? if i have ever done that, it would have been like a rash. what about the people you were investigating. but i'm not investigating.

>> said there had been interventions. they happened before. that is in a poor part to make. thedo you have any ideas how it looks? there could be evidence as a result of that. i cannot see anything in the background for the lines are being crossed.

it was employed. fear was the publication. -- that was the publication. >> we are trying to understand why it was there. " this decision was made that we all think it is incorrect. you were going ahead. i want to understand why. here is the problem. >> they were wondering why there was not pressure. >> i want to understand why this opposition was made. he might be interested.

do you understand why everybody is there? they have all these other connections. >> do not beat me up. i am saying to exactly what my aspirations are. i saw this as an opportunity for a secretariat. there is nothing more absolute than that. you have heard from people and the great decisions. they were understanding decisions that were made. i believe responsibility stops at my door.

they have been very clear that on a day-to-day basis you is investigating. my command will be good. >> do you know about these things? >> of the rules are very clear. >> that is what it was. >> it is the interaction you had. >> you will find when it is exposed. >> you -- what happened was journalists. that is not necessarily improper. he were having dinner with journalists, were you not? they were being investigated.

>> it is up in my issues. we have to go back to the timeline. i cannot remember the time of when it have been in relation to was going on. i agree that what you are saying. there is no way that i would ever discourage anything from anyone. >> you say that you never discloses. you have made a judgment call. this is correct. >> you think that is the correct form of action? it is to say let's not do that.

let's make some excuses. i discussed that with a senior colleague. this is the director of communications. >> what is his name? >> i do not know why you laugh. it is astonishing. all i am sure i can say to you is this. whenever had a conversation that a compromise investigation. can you not discuss these tactics in general?

it is impossible for you to do that. you are aware of police tactics. >> you are not aware of police tactics. there is absolutely no way. that is the purpose of that meeting. this is ridiculous. >> thank you. they go there. some people want this. this is one of them. what do you mean? >> >> we will just go ahead. the others were in charge.

he had in 2000. >> we kept that. then people say it is a general strategy. there are all sorts of increase. what would you prefer their responsibility? there were a different part of the stable. at times that is a big outfit. famous come to the conclusion pen. they would have the overall responsibility.

it would not come. >> he would have heard that this was not the tone. they have this reputation as an investigator. he got on with it. he kept his cards very close to his chest. there were below them. that dangerous men. he did not want him on the bench. and not quite sure who else i could have gone too. they performed to the best of their ability. >> you have made their own judgment on that. >> thank you. >> thank you. i feel a little bit like i have

fallen through the rabbit hole. you said that in the original investigation, you noticed no stone was left unturned. we wonder why there was a decision not to have exhausted analysis of this. there is no assessment of any additional victims. can you explain your role in that position and your assessment? >> i will pick of the mood of the committee. i had no involvement in that decision. i think they also had the evidence.

they with their within the parameters. >> been made the decision himself. >> he came to have meetings with you. he would have discussed whether he was there to continue it. you have no recollection of discussing this. >> you are right. there are general terms about it. they will be working very close. on the basis of the briefings, i will take the judgments and decisions. he would explain exactly what

his thinking was. >> you cannot remember him? >> you were aware he is conducting this investigation? >> he was thinking about the priority level. >> they have come with me with what he saw i would imagine i would endorse it. >> you have no thoughts of your own? >> i would have endorsed what he said. >> we need to hurry. >> what do you paint this to be? -- what would you suggest this

to be? >> you do not believe to review anything more. >> they are up here. and do you think it is a good idea? >> when you look back now, this is absolutely awful. people are going through the pain. they were just appalling. one thing they announced recently is that we must have a judge. this is its. >> why did you say this?

there are these allegations. >> i do not remember it. d remember what you said? >> they have it through this initial investigation. >> they have this. there are allegations of this.

we see this. there is no investigation. >> it was not that long. >> everything is possible. it was done. i was upset by that.

illus very light. we have more time to do it. we did not have that at the time. he decided he was frustrating. >> is was a disaster. he went to prison. >> you do not think it was a disaster? nothing came from it. it was given to this review. >> they reviewed it. >> i do not know. this is what it is. she is trying to put it around.

they were proportionate. >> do you have a reason to apologize? >> i want to make sure -- where i stand, i am apologizing that they are sending i have done wrong. i want to know what it is that people have done wrong. let me ask about the new number. it is under the heading. they use the investigation.

you wrote my heart sank when those dealing with a acquisition. we put our best detectives on the case and let no stone unturned. they have this can invite kids see this, they have this. they have been investigated.

>> when it was written, it is on the basis of this. i member there was a command. he came to my office. he came to new the number. it is something in the region of eight or nine. there were three groups. it was ostensibly a contact list. they were not expecting that from anyone. there were numbers of people. the second list was a short-term number. my recollection was that there could have been pin numbers. thirdld've been a

category. they have a pin number and telephone number. my understanding was that we have gone from a long list of contact numbers down to a list of people for which they can do. this is what was written in 2009. there are other individuals that have been hacked. >> they have been attacked. >> we are not giving the names. >> they do this. >> i can only member and a handful of people. they were prosecutors.

>> doesn't come as a surprise to year to have these documents? it was a subject to compensation. that was never investigated. >> when were the others investigated? >> there was evidence parity as for information on the journalists. that is what they said a few months ago.

he was the name? by the second member. >> -- who was the name? >> i do not remember. >> who were the names? where did it come from? >> of shine to explain to you. i dish remember him coming in. he said these were the names. it was not until later that i even remember that. there were the premises and other sources can it goes there. >> i hope you can help us. >> this is kind of factual.

people had a similar one. they did talk to the news international. it is not done there. it is incorrect? >> hebbian speculate at around all you want. you have -- you can speculate. and motivate it into outcome. they know it. they have it. >> that is what they want.

>> >> i am very conscious that this session will be watched by victims of hacking. much of the evidence is so familiar. i wonder if you would accept the fact that is something you but predict if you except that fact? is there something you like to say? >> that is a matter absolute regret. >> would you like to apologize now? >> i do apologize. thank you.

>> did you ever receive payment? >> lots of people did this. >> that is not fair. >> they are paying with additional comments. >> members of the committee are allowed to ask any questions a. wyss -- questions they wish. it is in the public domain. >> >> how many officers and

stab did you have on this 2006 investigation? >> how many was its? >> i cannot remember. >> they have this evidence. i think it speaks for itself. >> thank you. can we have our final witness? >> can we go straight to our next witness? could i stop with an apology for

keeping you waiting? there we are. we will not as cute about operational matters. we know you are very sensitive. you are in the middle of an investigation. we appreciate the fact that you come here. do tell us that there is a thorough inquiry going on headed by you. it is what the processes. >> i am very happy to do so. i'm very conscious that all of the are relying on this. it is something they have provided. let me set the record straight.

i think this is on the website. i do not see that. it is owned by someone had complained that they had leaked information. i have now established that it was the work of a journalist who is putting this together. they have gone in public record as saying it is just. speculative journalism. >> matters are being cleaned. that document is a compilation. it did not come from us. >> thank you. i do not want you to rely on that. >> i am most grateful. >> please tell us why this inquiry was set out. >> i think the catalyst was the

civilize action. there was a vast amount of disclosure. they did it in connection. they came across the 3 e-mails. that is in the public domain. that is in january. bishop of there is another one. that was the catalyst. this is where i am. they set up an inquiry. there is documentation in the administration.

>> how many full-time officers to you have? >> here are the resources. a.q. before a specific operational basis. we can find that we do not need as many as that. i am not sure whether you just came in. we are not going to go back over everything that has happened. one of the concerns that the documents that were originally seen were reviewed by him. they have all the original materials.

they can have additional material. they are reviewing that evidence. they are investigating in a thorough way. >> it to be helpful if i look at our approach. >> he thought long and hard about this. there are difficulties that he gets into. they have a very pragmatic approach. they have a number of people. they have this.

it is the same way. there are other people who have had their messages listen to. the person whose messages there are there. they have given a commitment. there are various people names there. they have their first names and second names. the of undertaken each one.

as we do that, we work our way through that. it makes sense of numbers and connections. we showed them that. there are other people. is there a concern? between them, a bad 120 victims. should they inform their customers that they have been hacked? should they wait for them to do so? they are helping us compiling

its. only one company will have that. the other phone companies are coming to it. i think he may have been under the impression. another once have taken responsibility. >> the names are coming out of public demand appear i-- demand.

>> they may have sold this to journalists. is this under your purview as well? >> it will all come down to my purview. >> see that as whether he had been hacked. he agreed. people write to you. they say yes or no. >> when we took over the job, we have to get there in reply the people.

they have potential victims. there is something like five center. there is about 70. >> can clarify? to have all the resources you need? >> we have the commission. they have this. you have the resources. there is no thing. >> is costly under review.

it is constantly under review. there is another organization is 60,000 plus people. >> payments are there. they have this by the metropolitan commissioner. they will decide how these allegations of the investigated. >> that is not quite as it happens. on the 20th of june, we were

alerted to the fact that there were allegations. it is as a consequence of that. we made a formal referral. these were the agreements. it remained until with me.

>> if there is an investigation, it is illegal. it has to be referred to. my question is, that has been made? >> there are other issues. >> there are investigations. >> thank you. >> to let this go.

how quickly do you think this could really get going? >> it is difficult to put a time scale on this. i think there is probably a limited amount. there are materials that are in the public demands. it is difficult. this is very start to take evidence. >> t think delay has to be weeks, months, years? >> i can tell your that it

dropped over. there were charges. they would not have been for them. >> they are announcing the names of the head of it. >> into suspended. -- it was suspended. >> exactly. we are trying to get to the bottom of it. it was last week. the previous ones where there. you are not dealing with that at all?

>> it was used in the convictions. >> they think it is all the increase. >> they contain disinformation. >> the last one i wanted to ask you is how do you support it? >> i think when they started, it was through lawyers. it was difficult.

forgive me if i am offending anyone. they have amounts of complexity. it was difficult. my colleagues talk about journalistic privilege and how that can create problems. they have developed it. i in meetings to deal with this. subsequent, they have been much better. it is not sometimes daily.

it is a different feel. >> they are dealing with it. >> i think they are serious indeed. all the people are contacted. >> they have the scope of the investigation. >> we talk about the news international. there are other media organizations. >> we have do start or restart. we start to do this with the news of the world.

>> 1d expect to finish? >> -- what do you expect to finish? >> it depends emollient cover along the way. >> we will investigate these matters? >> i am. >> thank you. >> you talked about in these investigations. hal is a possible the civil action can do this information? -- how is it possible that civil action can do this information? >> they asked this. >> i know what you are saying.

this is the way it was. there are people out there. they feel badly about this. they continue their actions. finally, they do this. this is a perfect time. there have been a number of journalists and others that can this. they have kept this appointment. baking keep it. -- they can keep it. there are other things. there are demands of reporting that is going on. now it is a time to do this.

there is this holding. in >> he is in touch. >> i presume you welcome any hope. >> clearly people are. >> are you surprised with what you have made? >> it's clear that people are withholding evidence from coming out. could it not be that offices are leaking this information rather

than media outlets already have it? >> some can be accused of that. of thepily confident speculation around 7/7 bombings, we did not know that they were contained within our material. >> you did say that the reopening have been prompted by the disclosure of the civil action. i recalled john yates telling us that it was related to the "news of the world" giving further evidence. which of those is it? >> it is both. that evidence was given in a civil action, and that

presumably realize that it would have to come to us. >> can ask your question that mr. clarke was not able that answer because he had retard? in 2009, when "news of the world" had given information about gordon taylor, why did that not prompt you to reopen the issue? >> i cannot answer that. i have not looked back. i have not analyzed that. >> [unintelligible] you could be looking at other sections. >> after any charges, we worked

with the cpx and they will decide in the course if it came to that. i answer that will not confine themselves to one possibility. the less i am sure they will not confine themselves to one possibility. >> the evidence received from commissioner yates was on the 20th of july, 2009 he had the 11,000 documents. was that not the useful format? >> i do not have that knowledge. it was complete and mistakes were made. as laborious as a maybe, but as as it may become a people

inquiring about whether they were victims, had to be republish sure -- completely reassured that we had a complete and accurate picture. so had gone through all of this material. >> they did not have a complete list of victims at that time. you now have a complete list of all victims from the pre-january 11 thousand documents and the post-january documents. >> we have now put on to a database all of that material seized in 2005 and 2006. >> but up but -- what about the recent disclosures from news international? >> how many have been contacted and how many are left? >> what i describe the scale of

the tasks, a thing or something like 3817 names and others in the data base. another 5000 telephone numbers and other mobile numbers. we have started as well as other people that we have seen. i have forgotten how many we have. bear with me. sorry, i referred to the person behind me. he tells me 170 people have been

informed. >> at 2000 names, 5000 land mines, and 4000 of oz, 170 have been contacted. a lot more work to be done. >> there is a lot more work to be done. i can see how that looks. i've explained the months that it took to get to there. they are distracted by several actions and other things. >> it seems to be not critical at all. >> [unintelligible] 1 review led to a huge number of publications which have shown in using illegal services. other newspapers as well. are you prepared to look beyond

news international if that is where the evidence goes? >> absolutely. >> what damage has been done? how much damage has been done to the met by all this? >> it is everyone's analysis that there has been damaged. and i do not doubt that they do not get this right, there will continue to be damage. have an excellent team working tirelessly to get this right. i hope i do not have to come back here and explain why we failed. >> it is important at the commissioner will make a statement tomorrow in the guardian. i've just received a letter from him concerning his intentions or plans to do so. do you know anything about this? >> we have no idea about this.

i think it is fair to say i've never seen an inquiry quite like this. some of this is accurate and some of it is completely speculative. >> you're confident that this will be a thorough inquiry. and it will help us to process the matter. >> i hope so. >> thank you so much. you may be contacted in five days. thank you very much for coming in. point of order. thank you. >> in a few moments, yesterday's funeral for former first lady betty ford who died on friday at the age of 93. "washington journal" is live at 7 eastern. segment on iraq and afghanistan

and a look at that debt ceiling and the 2012 campaign. the house is in session. today's agenda includes more work on energy and water p rogress. >> ben bernanke presents the semiannual monetary report to congress this morning. live coverage from the house financial services committee is on c-span-3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> former first lady betty ford died friday at the age of 93. her funeral in california included eulogies from former first lady rosalynn carter and cokie roberts. this is about an hour and a half. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[no audio] >> i am the resurrection and the

life saith the lord. p he did believe in meet the though he were dead yet shall he live. whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. i know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. though this body be destroyed, yet shall i see god, whom i shall see for myself and my eyes behold as not a stranger. for, none of us live to himself and no man dieth to himself. if we live, we live on to the lord and if we die we die unto the lord. whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the lord's. blesed are the dead who die in the lord.

even so sayeth the spirit, for they rest from their labors.

>> let us pray. o god of grace and glordy, remember our sister betty. we thank you for giving her to us to know and love as a companion. console us who mourn. death, faith todse see in

the date to eternal life so that we may continue our course on earth until, by your call, we are reunited with those who have gone before, through jesus christ our lord, amen. >> amen. >> most merciful god whose wisdom is beyond our understanding deal graciously with mike, jack, steve, susan, and their families as they grieve. surround them with your love that they may not be overwhelmed by their loss but have confidence in your goodness and strength to meet the days to come through jesus christ our lord. amen. please be seated.

>> "hast thou not known or heard that the everlasting god, the creator of the end of the earth is not weary. there is no searching of his understanding. he gives power to the faint to them that have no might he

increases strength. even the youth shall fall faint and the weary and utterly fall. but they that wait upon the lord shall renew their strength. they shall mount up with wings as eagles. they shall run and not be weary. and they shall walk and not faint." the word of the lord. ♪

[singing hymn, untintelligible] ♪

♪

>> a reading from the first letter of paul to the corinthians. ofif i speak in the tons

morals and angels but do not have love, i am a noisy gong or clanging cymal. if i have all faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love, i am nothing. if i give away my possessions and hand over my body so that i may boast but do not have love, i gained nothing. love is patient, love is kind, love is not envious or arrogant or rude. it does not insist on its own way. it is not irrigable or resentful. it does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices in truth. it bears all things, believes

all things, hopes and endures all thing. love never ends. as for tongues, they will cease. acknowledge will come to an end. but we know only in part and we prophesy in part. when i was a child, i spoke like a child, fought like a child, reasoned like a child. when i became an adult, i've put an end to child-ways. mirror we see in a dimly, but then we will see face-to-face. now i know impart. then i will dolefully, even as i have fully been known. now faith, hope and love abide.

these three, and the greatest of these is love." the word of the lord. >> thanks be to god. >> faith, hope and love. three remarkable qualities of the human spirit. qualities that we as her family have seen and experienced in mom threw out her entire life. faith in god and in jesus christ, as her maker and provider, her redeemer, counselor and friend. her faith was evidenced through her personal renewal in faith. faith in her life. at the beginning of her recover

from her dependency on alcohol and prescription drugs. we know of mom's faith. o'm's faith in the value, the dignity, the worth of her fellow man, and her faith in each of her children, in her brother and sister, her son and daughters-in-law, her grandchildren, great- grandchildren, as men and women of good character with great potential and gerareat promise o lead and serve others for the good of all. we know of mom's hope that god's design and his gracious purposes fror all mankind would be worked

out and fulfilled through the ministry. and we know of her hope that each of us as family might discover and embraced that special call of god on our lives and for our futures. love.nally, mom's we know of her love. her love of god and his personal touch on her life, bringing good out of evil, feeling out of -- healing out of brokenness, joy and dancing -- yes, dancing. she was quite a dancer. bringing dancing out of sorrow. we know her love for dad.

as she called him "my boyfriend." just yesterday susan was rummaging through some of their special family letters and came across a western union telegram from january 1, 1948. it was from gerry ford. he was in santa monica california at the rose bowl. and he sent this to miss betty warren. that's my mom. [laughter] he writes: miss you, betty. wish you were here.

loads of love, gerry. what a beautiful journey they shared together as husband and wife. faithfully standing by each other through the hard times, through the good times, to the challenges, through the crucibles of life, only to grow stronger in their devotion to one another and closer in their united love. and we know of mom's love for her family. each one of us as her children, son and daughters in law, children, great grandchildren, will each have our own stories, stories to tell, memories to cherish of how mom loved us.

how she took the time to know us. each on in our own special way, and to love us so well. we know of mom's love for others, whether it be a friend in need or a patient at the betty ford center, mom extended herself freely in love and compassion to so many. once again, her desire to know a person's heart, to know their brokenness, their struggles, and her willingness to share and care for them through word of grace and acts of mercy. so, as her extended family, we are here this day to give thanks for her precious life.

we celebrate her life, we rejoice in the goodness of it, and how she lived it to its full, leaving no regrets, only hope and joy. we celebrate the precious life of faith, of hope, and of love, but the greatest of these was her love.

♪ intro]azing grace" >> amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. i once was lost but now am found, was blind, but now i see.

t'was grace that taught my heart to fear. and grace, my fears relieved. how precious did that grace appear the hour i first believed. the hour i first believed.